How to introduce new players to HeroQuest?

[Caynreth]

Hi

as mentioned in another post I'm going to play my first HQ-game in near future.
My fellow players never played HQ or any similar game. Since now they have been playing more 'standard' rpgs like D&D, GURPS or Earthdawn.

Do you have any suggestions how to introduce this type of game to these players? Any ideas how to make the difference between the games they know and HQ clear? Which approach would you choose? Or maybe you've already done something similar and might share your experience?

Caynreth

[Bankuei]

Hi Caynreth,

There are three major differences between HQ and the games you have mentioned, which tend to be the conceptual hurdles for new players.

Mechanics

Easiest of the three to explain, most people tend to have trouble here simply because HQ is more cinematic than the more "realist" or simulationist oriented games.  Important concepts such as shifting APs doesn't translate into a "hit" that "does more damage", or that "Love of Daughter 17" can translate into directly more effective rolls via augmentation.  Get your players to firmly grasp that the game is based on cinematic play, not realism.

An easy way to start is to ask players what they want to do, in a freeform sense, and then explain how it would work mechanically, as you play.  This gives many players an excellent feel for the rules.  

Setting

As has been mentioned in the other thread, Glorantha is big, and very scary in the sense that it requires some work from the group.  I suggest starting with a culture that is reminiscient of something everyone is comfortable with from the real world.  Personally, I watch a lot of HK movies, and so do my friends, so its easiest for me to use Kralorela as my "entry point" to Glorantha.  Use a culture that has the least amount of culture shock for your players.  

Approach

Finally, HeroQuest supports a style of play called Narrativism, which is rarely supported by written materials in roleplaying in general.  The major issues that crop up in utilizing it are that there can be no preplanned plot, no railroading, and that players should be allowed some form of input into "what happens".    This is the hardest part of introducing most people to HQ play, just because it goes against a lot of ingrained habits or assumptions of play.  

The only level of discussion I tend to do is to emphasize that the player may have metagame desires for the character which would be more fun to utilize in play(Author Stance), and let the players experience what it means to NOT be railroaded in play.  It may take players a while to come out of the shell, and really explore what that means.  It usually helps if you have at least one player who already tends to do this, as they act as an example for the others to follow.

Of course, you can certainly play HQ Sim style(the default in the other games you mentioned), but you'll get pretty similar play experiences to those games, just with more mythology floating about.

Chris

[Scripty]

Finally, HeroQuest supports a style of play called Narrativism, which is rarely supported by written materials in roleplaying in general.  The major issues that crop up in utilizing it are that there can be no preplanned plot, no railroading, and that players should be allowed some form of input into "what happens".    This is the hardest part of introducing most people to HQ play, just because it goes against a lot of ingrained habits or assumptions of play.  

Chris

Chris hits the nail on the head with his post, but I think that this point is worth re-reading. Over and over.

It's my experience that this could be the single biggest hurdle to groups coming from long-standing D&D, RIFTS, or really any other game out there that isn't tweaked toward narrative play.

In the end, this was the straw that broke the camel's back between me and the three different groups with whom I had been playing and running for over three years.

Players in this area had their Gamist/Sim focus routinized in play, such that defining play outside of those terms had no meaning whatsoever to many of them. In fact, the only successes I really had with Narrativist play (other than one incredible night in the Hyborea-HQ game) were when I could surreptitiously couch my "Narrativist agenda" within a sheepskin of Sim Illusionism. Essentially, when I could make it all *seem* pre-planned to these groups. Hence, they think Donjon is a great game, while they think HeroQuest is a load of crap.

It may sound odd, but once these guys realized that I had no "plot" set for the evening, that I responded primarily to facilitate their character's priorities in play, and (even worse) that I honestly had no attachment to the storyline outside of my expectation that we would have fun...

Pretty much, once these points were realized, these guys felt... ripped off. To them, the "plot" was what the GM was supposed to do. That was his role. There was also a stubborn and confounding refusal on their part to supply details or drive the story with their character in many instances. Rather than taking the realization, which I had been clear about since before the first game, and feeling empowered by it. They reacted against it and tried, in their meager way, to prove to me, or themselves, that this kind of game simply would not work.

I gave them Protagonism. They responded with... well... apathy at best and outright rebellion against their own empowerment in many cases.

I suppose it was so they could prove, to themselves (?), that the Wizard was just a man behind the curtain and that one player with a really crappy attitude could completely wreck a narrative game, as if that were something unique to narrative games on the whole. And then we could get back to playing d20 because (see?) these narrative games really are easy to break. That's the best way I can put it. The biggest problem in my last game was a guy who (a) wanted to run his own d20 game with the group and (b) if he couldn't run wanted his buddy to run D&D 2nd edition. Essentially, he just wanted to use my house as a playroom.

Here's an example of how it went down. I can't remember specifics. It's been about a month now. But the gist of the situation went like this...

Bangs are supposed to be situations that you, as a character, have to respond to. Situations that put your characters into a position where they have to do something. Well... I would run into Situations where, when presented with a Bang, the player would willfully choose to do nothing, even though by doing nothing a series of events were still set into place as if the player had chosen to do something.

So in essence it would work like this (borrowing a Bang from Mike's Shadow World game):

GM: "As you walk by a man dressed in shabby clothes grabs your pendant, the source of your magical power! What do you want to do?"
Player: "Nothing. He can have it. It sucked anyway."
GM: (look of amazement) "..."
GM: "Okay. He rips off your pendant and runs away. Do you pursue?"
Player: "Nah. What's next?"
GM: (continues look of amazement) "..."
GM: "Well, you arrive at the king's court for the magical duel you had challenged his vizier to yesterday."
Player: "But I don't have my pendant!"
GM: "That's right. You let that thief take it."
Player: "This sucks! Why'd you make that thief take my pendant?"

You get the picture. It only deteriorates from there. And I'm not even going near what they tried to pass off as Kickers... ("I'm in a Tavern." "No, this is supposed to be something you have to respond to." "Okay, I'm in a Tavern and a barmaid offers me a beer!")

So, I guess make really, really, really, really, really, really sure that the players know up front what this is all about. I thought my players did, but then I watched them slip back into the "reveal the sacred and holy plot to me, oh, most pontificous Game Lord" mode, a role I didn't even take on in my old d20 games. I guess I would advise understanding something that I didn't: that some gamers are programmed to play in a certain way. Make sure that your players understand that their programming won't necessarily apply here. Again, I thought all this was abundantly clear. But apparently I don't speak so clearly when I'm explaining things to groups of people.

But, then, of the three groups that I formerly played with for over three years I now play in....

None. Zilch. Zero. I have written off the groups and they have written me off as well. They're not interested in this new type of game and I'm not interested in getting back in line. So, I just don't play. But it took a lot of political B.S. on certain players' parts and players saying some pretty harsh things about me (even in my own house) for us to reach this happy impasse.

And the situation was mostly revolved around my desire to try out something new and their desire to play D&D 24/7. Currently, of the three groups, one (the one I ran) is dead because I killed it (and took its stuff). And of the other two, one is a D&D 2nd edition game and the other is a D&D 3rd edition game. I underestimated the overwhelming resistance that some people can have to change and to new ideas. I paid a pretty big price and realized that a couple of people I considered friends didn't think so highly of me after all. Too bad, I think these guys would've loved HeroQuest if they would've given it a chance.

Hopefully, you'll have better luck than I...

Scott

[Bankuei]

Hi Scott,

I believe your example deserves its own thread, probably over in Actual Play.  To touch on a few points, without getting all deep into things:

-Play of any sort(Nar or otherwise) only functions when the group as a whole generally wants that sort of thing
-Player input begins at the point of "how we're going to play"
-A bang without emotional commitment from the player,  not the character, is pretty empty.  Bangs should really riff off a central conflict that the group is jazzed about.  

Chris

[Scripty]

Hi Scott,

I believe your example deserves its own thread, probably over in Actual Play.  To touch on a few points, without getting all deep into things:

-Play of any sort(Nar or otherwise) only functions when the group as a whole generally wants that sort of thing
-Player input begins at the point of "how we're going to play"
-A bang without emotional commitment from the player,  not the character, is pretty empty.  Bangs should really riff off a central conflict that the group is jazzed about.  

Chris

Hi Chris:
It has been listed on a thread in Actual Play. I only reiterated it here because I had no idea if Caynreth knew it was over there.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9236

I thought your point needed emphasis and clarification, precisely from what you just stated.

-Play of any sort(Nar or otherwise) only functions when the group as a whole generally wants that sort of thing

Completely understood and agreed. My example was just to show that Caynreth should be absolutely, positively sure that everyone is on board. Heck, after my experience, I would get it in writing from the players. My group discussed repeatedly and spent a significant amount of time before each session discussing Narr play. But it was like whistling into the wind. IME, there's no way to be sure that everyone's completely on board. Actions speak louder than words. Although the players *said* they understood, they played like they didn't. And didn't care.

I tend to take people at their word. It's a flaw of mine that has plagued me my entire life. If someone tells me they would like to try out a new game, I believe that they are interested in giving it an actual try. Not a half-hearted-I've-got-nothing-better-to-do-on-a-Monday-night attempt. I don't much know how to read beyond the okays, yesses, and "I understand"s of my group's discussions together. When they say they understand, I take it that that's what they mean. My advice to Caynreth is to watch in play to be sure that your players understand. Don't be afraid to stop the game and explain again something you just explained if the players aren't playing like they understand what you just said. Also, don't be afraid to stop the game and address Social Contract issues when they come up. My game would've ended weeks before it did if I would've done that.

I learned more about what the players wanted in my group from observing their play than from listening to their platitudes. That's how I realized that the problem with our group went beyond HeroQuest, Narrativism and a red herring Social Contract that we had agreed upon apparently so they could continue eating snack-foods in my living room one night a week.

-Player input begins at the point of "how we're going to play"

Um, yep. Another thing for Caynreth to take to heart as well. In my case, I was under the impression that we were interested in trying something new. No one ever alerted me that this had changed verbally. It was up to me to find out through rumors and allegations that were being thrown around behind my back, mostly by the player who was convinced (somehow) that Narr games didn't work and wanted to run his own d20 game.

-A bang without emotional commitment from the player,  not the character, is pretty empty.  Bangs should really riff off a central conflict that the group is jazzed about.  

Problem is, and this is something that Caynreth should also be aware of, a Bang takes two. It takes the GM to come up with something exciting that does as you say and as Ron explains in his writings as well. But it also takes player input on both the upload and the download. My example was just an example of a player offering no input on the download end of things. For a little background, that pendant (in Mike's online Shadow World game) is the source of my PCs power and also one last illusionary thread of communication to my PC's dead wife. In the actual game that the Bang occured, I scampered to get the pendant and enlisted the aid of all around me. I did recover it.

Contrast that situation with how I've extrapolated the players in my group handling the Bang. Here is a central, pivotal point of a character which the player just ignores. I take all the input from the player on the upload to figure out a Bang that will engage them, but the response is nil. I understand how this may be a case of the Bang not having an emotional grip on the player or group. But can you not see how a player could short-circuit the Bang system by acting counter to what they found interesting the game before or to the overriding themes of their character? It would be like if Cyclops of the X-Men stood by and watched Sabretooth rip anb unconscious Jean Grey apart and then turned around and asked Rogue out on a date. The player's input/influence on a Bang isn't just in terms of what goes into it, but also what goes out of it (IMO).

These particular players (all except one it would seem) wanted to prove to me in their own way that Narr gaming sucked. They subverted Bangs by turning their themes and emotional commitments on their ears at the drop of a hat, leaving me with no sense whatsoever of what direction the player wanted their character to go, what they found interesting or important in the game, or even what kind of game they wanted to play in. If Actions != Words, then Social Contract can be in a real mess, IME.

I've come to the conclusion that they, as a group, did not want to play a Narrative based game. But when we discussed it beforehand, they seemed open to the idea, even excited by it. What changed between point X and point Y is still a mystery to me. Last time I talked to these guys I took enough verbal abuse that I'm really content to let it be a mystery.

Again, this was to both elaborate on one of your points, Chris, as well as to give Caynreth my own experiences so that he could be aware of them when discussing his upcoming game with his players and establishing his group's Social Contract. Essentially, it's a cautionary for him to make sure that everything is laid out on the table and even then make sure that everything is laid out on the table, especially if he's playing with gamers coming from experience with other RPGs.

If you would like to know more about what transpired in my now non-existent group, it's available on the thread I mentioned. I see no need to discuss it any further in terms of my application of Narrativist theories. I get Narr fine. I just had some players with their own agendas who were being a tadbit deceitful about the whole Social Contract issue. I think, Chris, that you would agree with me that Narr play could break down under those circumstances.

Scott

[Bankuei]

Hi Caynreth,

To bring things back on topic, here's my suggestion for introducing new folks, on the concrete steps level:

1. Pick a culture and a location (as a group, should excite everyone)
2. A little bit of interpretation(talk a little about ideas for interpreting the culture, area, or myths to make it personalized to the group)
3.  Define Conflict(who's against who, over what, and why?)
4.  Folks should talk about their characters, share ideas
5.  Produce characters(as in, writing them down, defining scores, etc.)

In terms of approach to play, let the players know:

1.  There is no "plot", simply the conflict.  Create a character who will get involved in the conflict.  As a player, you are agreeing to get involved in the conflict.  You may wish to limit them to one "side" but its not necessary.

2.  Relationships in the conflict.  I usually suggest each hero have 2 to 3 relationships with folks already involved in the conflict(although they can come from different "sides"! )

3.  Run some example contests, both short and extended.  Allow players more input into narrating how things happen.  Grab things like examples from movies, comics, and books to show how it would be modeled in a contest(ex:  AP lending- throwing your friend a sword, just before they get charged)

4. Start with a small conflict, one that can be resolved in 1 to 3 sessions.  Although Glorantha begs for big, nasty conflict, start small to introduce the players.  It also keeps the energy level up and the action going, which is necessary to really give them "what its about" in a digestible chunk.

Chris

[Caynreth]

Wow, that's what I like so much about this forum: you ask a question and in almost no time you get really substantial answers. Thanks for them.

I suppose Scripty hit the point I'm really afraid of.

For many years I played those Sim-RPGs and once in a while I'd get the feeling that there is something wrong and would ask myself if this was really the reason why I chose roleplaying to be my favorite pasttime.
Last fall now I felt extremly frustrated and bored by the way our rpg sessions went and started to search the net for some ideas. I stumbled across this site with all those ideas and theories and found a valid set of answers to many of my questions.
I tried "The Pool" with some people I thought might understand it and we had so much fun.
Later I tried "The Pool" with some of the players I have been playing GURPS and stuff for years. The didn't like it. Their objections were: 1) If they do the story telling there will be nothing left to discover for them because they built the whole story. The want to discover my story.
2) They don't have any character sheets with numbers on them for guidance and they can't roll the dice to make decisions for their characters.
3) Their characters could do anything or nothing.

Now I thought HQ could be more suited to introduce them to this way of playing if The Pool is to freeform for them.

Actualy I think I'm just afraid of loosing them as players....

[Bankuei]

Hi Caynreth,

Most Nar play does not involve making up the backstory as you go.  You can have a solid backstory of relationships and history, but the key to Nar play is not dictating what happens in play.  So your players can still enjoy discovering mysteries or who is really allied to whom, simply not in a railroaded, clue to clue sense.

In fact, I recommend developing a solid backstory full of conflict and subconflict, because it ends up replacing the "plot" for the GM.  All you need to do is say, "Which NPC is going to do what, in regards to the conflict?", and you pick an interesting one and start a scene.

This is especially key to HQ play, since usually we're talking communities and cultures in conflict.  If you want a good example, Peter Nordstrand and I wrote a pretty deep scenario called Well of Souls, which you can look up here:

http://www.geocities.com/doctorpeace/well.html

Here you have a complex set of relationships and subconflicts, but the basic premise is simple.  There's plenty for players to "discover" during play, but there is no set outcome.

Chris

[RaconteurX]

The key to Nar play is not dictating what happens in play.  So your players can still enjoy discovering mysteries or who is really allied to whom, simply not in a railroaded, clue to clue sense

I would call that a key to Simulationist play, rather than Narrative play, but that is a personal opinion. The needs of the story can dictate that a scene be framed in a particular way (i.e., aggressively), and that is what many people mean by railroading.

[soru]

My personal opinion is that if you have an existing gaming group and want to switch play-styles, you shouldn't confuse the issue by switching game-systems at the same time.

If you've already been playing effectively narrativist games with your current group for 2 years, then you can jump into HQ and carry on doing the same thing no problem. And you can run perfectly good HQ games with just somewhat less combat mechanics than D&D.

But trying to learn a new system and way of running the game at the same time is very likely to cause problems, like trying to take a quantum mechanics course in a language you started learning a week ago.

But maybe someone has a different experience.

soru

[Bankuei]

Hi Michael,

Any form of railroading instantly destroys the possibility of Nar play.  Scene framing in a Nar sense, may be an aggressive start, but cannot determine what the outcome will be.

In the case of HQ, the difference between Nar and Sim play is determined in how you set up and run "scenarios".  The core book provides the typical Sim style of scenarios, which, you'll notice, only function if certain conditions are met.  A Nar based scenario eschews preplanned events as the foundation of preparation, and instead focuses on characters and relationships, without determining how or in what order these things are encountered, discovered, or how they will change in play.

Chris

[RaconteurX]

<rant>

Hi Chris,

I think the fundamental problem here is that you consider Narrativism to be superior to Simulationism, and therefore interpret everything that fits your style and philosophy of play as Narrativism. All the things you state about character- and relationship-focused events and the indeterminacy of outcomes are things I consider hallmarks of Simulationism as well.

Would you consider good, internally-consistent characterization a feature of Narrativism or Simulationism? I would say the latter as, in the former, it is ultimately the story which most matters. Narrative does inform and complement Simulation, as well as vice versa, but to broadly declare that more sophisticated play is the exclusive purview of your style... well, that is just plain elitist.

Sorry, I do like your posts but the overall tone of many people here bugs the heck out of me. Narrativism is no better than Simulationism, nor are either better than Gamism. Whatever style works and is fun for you and yours, but keep in mind that other people enjoy other styles, and many of us manage, despite assertions to the contrary regarding the possibility, to blend styles pleasingly and effectively.

</rant>

[Bankuei]

Hi Michael,

I don't consider Nar play better than Sim play, only less supported in terms of written material explaining the techniques.  You are reading into my words things that are not there.  

All I am saying is:

-Nar play cannot happen without player input into "what happens"
-That player input cannot happen with a predetermined plot
-Finally, thematic premise must get addressed during play in Narrativism

Anything else you are reading into there simply isn't what I'm saying.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

I'm going to try to make myself unpopular here by disagreeing with everyone.

First, I think that it's pretty obvious that the HQ text is only so narrativist. As you point out, Chris, the scenarios aren't at all narrativist. And people play it other than narrativist. You may think that narrativist is the only way to play the game, but in the end that's just propaganda. If you'd said, "I think it's the best way to play," or something, then I wouldn't object. But the implication that it doesn't support other methods of play is only believed here at The Forge, by only a few people. I'm not one of them.

Yes, my game is probably somewhat narrativist, but that doesn't mean I would tell anyone else playing otherwise that they were doing it wrong. Especially when it seems that they're having fun doing it. Caynreth, what I'd say is that if you're interested try narrativist methods, I can only suggest giving it a closer look. But if you want to try playing it more traditionally, go ahead. Up to you.

Don't anybody use the term Railroading, please I beg you, without defining it first. Per usual it's being used here to mean "GM control where I don't like it". Which is too personal to mean anything to anyone else.

Soru, System Does Matter. I think that if a GM wants to change to a new mode, the way to do it is to change to a system that supports the mode. Will this be easy? Maybe not. But trying to convert players over to the new mode using a system that doesn't support the style is really difficult, will take forever, will be unsatisfying while you do it, and in the end, there's no garuntee that the players will convert. Better to just present the players with the new system and see if they get it. If they don't, then frankly, they probably never will. That is, all modes are easy to do, and only players who are canalized by a certain mode ever have problems adapting to new modes. So either they will or they won't, and it's best just to find out the quick way.

I've "converted" many players to new modes simply by presenting them with systems that supported the mode well. Often takes about ten minutes.

Michael, there are two kinds of Sim play, one in which the players are free, and one in which they aren't. I get that you like the free one, but to say that the other form doesn't exist is simply incorrect. Unless you're using some personal definition of which we're not aware for Simulationism.

Scott, your horrible experiences, while lamentable, are not typical. That is, your players were terribly canalized and maybe even had social problems. So what you're doing to poor Caynreth is making him fear something that's just not likely. Yes, it's possible that something like that might happen. It's also possible that he'll be hit by lightning tomorrow, but I don't think he should worry about that either. This doesn't mean your experience was any less relevant, just that it only pertains if his players are like yours. Most aren't.

Caynreth, it's hard to tell from your observations just what your player preference is. It could be that HQ will solve your problem, and then again, it may have problems for your players that you haven't even seen yet. What I suggest, is just being optimistic, and playing the game. You'll know for sure when you're done.

Have you considered that if it turns out that you want to play something different from them that "losing" them could be a positive thing? Sure, the best thing would be if they would just see things your way. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. In that case, you're going to have to either play their way, or find new players. This is something that you have to face.

I wouldn't say that HQ vs other games is at all a Realism/Cinematic dichotomy. You can narrate as realistically as you like with HQ. And it can take into account whatever level of detail you throw at it, too. What HQ does not do, is to structure outcomes in terms of declarations. That is, you don't declare "I hit it with my sword" and then we roll to see if that happens. It instead uses "conflict resolution" which simply means that we can narrate the in-game outcome in any way that matches the mehacnical outcome. So if I attack a person with a sword, and give them a -1 "Hurt" I can say that I wounded him with the sword, I can say that I swung to make him duck, and kicked him in the face. I can say that I bedazzled him with my swordplay, such that he'll have less confidence the next time we face each other (to the tune of -1).

This is actually simpler than people make it out to be.

The best advice I can give is for you, Caynreth, is to learn the game as well as you can before playing, so that you can give the players the best view of it. Nothing worse than spending half the session looking things up. If you come in an expert, then the players will be impressed with how you handle things with the system, and should have that much easier time adjusting themselves.

No reason to believe that it won't work out just great if you know your stuff.

Mike

[RaconteurX]

Good technique, Mike... pimp-slap everyone equally to bring 'em back to the topic at hand. :)